ORDER.-The revision petitioner, a tenant undaunted by failures in all the Courts below, has come up to this Court challenging the validity of an order of eviction passed against him in R.C.O. P. No. 430 of 1965 which was confirmed by the lower authorities both in appeal and revision. He challenged the order on the ground that what was demised in his favour was a mere extensive vacant site to enable him to run a timber depot. The mere fact that there exists a masonry structure, which the learned’ counsel for the petitioner (Mr. Nainar-sundaram) admits, will not clothe the Rent Controller with the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent, Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) (as amended by Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1973). According to him, if the dominant intention was to carry on a timber depot, the definition of “building” under section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act (XXIII of 1973) would not take in such a lease. In support of this argument, the learned counsel for petitioner cites the decisions in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Vairavan Chettiar1 and Jugal Kishore v. Ashok Mills2. The mere existence of a masonry structure would not mean that it would const

Click Here to Read the rest of this document